Several Democrats who previous voted against the bill (I think there were 11) were annoyed at the Governor’s reaction to it. Namely, his comments that the legislature had better things to do and his declaration that he would veto it before the bill had even left the House/Senate. They voted to overturn the veto because they thought that the governor was being dismissive of the VT legislature.
ahh - so same-sex marriage gets finally established in Vermont by a legislative - executive branch pissing match. Politics is such an interesting mix of high principles and low motives!
Quasi-Cite to the above:
Yea, who would’ve thought after all this time gay marriage would finally become legal due to spite.
Not really sure I see the problem they have with the Governor saying he’d veto prior to the bill passing though.
Well, yes.
The governor is elected to sign or veto laws. That’s not activism – it’s his job, just as it’s not “activist” for the legislature to make new law.
The judiciary, however, should not make substantive new law. They should interpret the existing law as it’s plainly written.
This is why this is a perfect result: changes like this, especially dramatic changes in the substantive law, should come from the people, via the people’s elected representatives. This is what it means to live in a democratic republic.
So if Iowa’s legislature passed a law banning free speech and the Iowa Supreme Court throws that out they are being activist and making substantive new law?
How is them finding the Iowa law banning same-sex marriages unconstitutional any different?
No, the “banning free speech” would be the making of substantive new law, since free speech is strongly rooted in our nation’s history and implicit to our notions of ordered liberty.
Same-sex marriage is NOT strongly rooted in our nation’s history and implicit to our notions of ordered liberty. And that’s what’s different. Making same-sex marriage legal is a change, a new thing, a result not intended or contemplated by anyone who wrote the constitutional phrases relied upon to justify it.
This is a new change. And it’s one we need to make, because we now understand that same-sex marriage is, like its opposite-sex counterpart, a wise social policy. But it’s a change, and if we truly govern ourselves, then that change should come from the legislature, the people we elect.
I was under the impression that Iowan judges were elected.
Well…anti-miscegenation laws were strongly rooted in our nation’s history for 80+ years. Was the SCOTUS activist in unanimously overturning statutes that obviously flew in the face of the Constitution because those laws had stood for so long?
Just because it takes the country awhile to get around their bigotry does not make a judicial ruling “activist”.
I think the Constitution does clearly read that banning same-sex marriages is a violation of the Constitution as it is currently written.
In my view the “proper” method to ban same-sex marriages is to pass a new US constitutional amendment spelling that out unambiguously. That is the democracy you speak of in action yes?
But equal protection is. That’s what’s at the heart of the matter.
So was interracial marriage in Virginia. And desegregated schools in Topeka.
No, the “because” is the principle of equal protection. Due process too, for that matter.
You know very well that “governing ourselves” has very often led to *flouting *of the principles we enshrine in the Constitution, not following them. Correction of those problems can, in some cases, come only from the judiciary. Who else can? Interpreting the constitution and applying its principles, even against the unwilling, is not “activism”, it’s a Supreme Court’s job.
It’s good that you have come to agree allowing SSM is “wise social policy”, but it doesn’t seem you accept that it necessarily follows from constitutional law too.
Yup. Not that it matters, because Bricker has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to this area. He’s stopped opposing gay marriage, but apparently the judicial branch of the government is not equal when it comes to the law.
Also, does it mean nothing to you. Bricker, that the Iowa court, elected by the people, was unanimous in opposing the ban, unlike the Cali and Mass courts?
My prediction will be that the “trogs” will complain that it was the act of a few “elitist” individuals who voted counter to the will of their constituents, and that the rights of the minority should have been put up to a popular vote. In fact, in the House debate leading up to their original vote (not the overturn), an amendment was proposed to do just that. It was voted down. It’s pretty much a given in my mind that the amendment was partially proposed to give the “trogs” something they can use to stir up anti-gay sentiment.
How does a state legislature constitute a “self” vis-a-vis the gay community. Gays had been waiting all this time for someone else to remove the barriers to them excercising their rights.
Judicial activism is a legitimate issue, but such cases ususally are in response to “tyranny of the majority” issues, granting rights to individuals that are none of the majorities business. I’m not aware of any cases where courts have stripped individual rights by overturning legislation granting more freedom (church-state establishment clause rulings restrain government-run institutions, not individuals).
But free speech includes pornography. And same-sex marriage can fall under the heading of religious freedom, “life, libety, and the pursuit of happiness”, and “all men are greated equal”.
So you’re in favor of anti-miscegenation laws, segergated schools, police gaining (or planting, or manufacturing) evidence by whatever means strike them as fun, questioning oth the accused without counsel, holding all trials at the convenience of the prosecution, the reinstitution of mandated school prayers composed by the school board, compulsory Pledge of Allegiance in schools, the criminalization of extramarital sex in all forms and oral and anal sex whether extra- or intra-marital, the prohibition of birth control, states depriving homosexual people of access to the courts, making disagreement with the President a criminal offense…? Please specify which of the above you disagree with, and why the courts should not have found as they did in the relevant cases. Thanks.
The only proper way to interpret constitutional principles, Captain C., is the one that Bricker employs. As you and I would clearly see if we were possessed of his level of wisdom. “All men are created equal” … but some are more equal than others.
That’s not really fair, Polycarp, for multiple grounds, not least that you don’t have to be in favor of the practice declared unconstitutional to think the Supreme Court ruling on it was erroneous.
Take Griswold. It’s perfectly possible to think that SCOTUS made a bad ruling (which I don’t agree) while at the same time supporting free access to contraception. You just might not think the constitution prevents states from banning it.
Hell, I think Roe was horribly argued, but I support not only abortion rights, but also think it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit it. Just not necessarily for the reasons SCOTUS held.
I’m not too keen on the idea of electing judges. Judges are supposed to be above politics. We shouldn’t be voting for judges based on which side of an issue we want them to come down on. They’re supposed to be the wisest, most impartial legal minds available.
Not thay any method for selecting judges is foolproof.
Are you referring to the infamous case of Griswold vs. Wally World? 
The Mormons did not have a lot of luck with the argument that right to marriage was part of religious freedom. It’s not going to be a winning argument.
This one is going to get decided in the courts on equal protection. Which is a good thing, because it will drag a lot of other protections along with it once sexual orientation is recognized as carrying heightened scrutiny.